Originally posted by Guru ZimHm.... I disagree with you when it involves irradiating large portions of a large city. I happen to believe that it's a very noble goal to try to prevent that from happening.

I'm not talking about using this kind of procedure for parking tickets. It just seems to me that there needs to be a point where something is important enough that principle isn't a good enough reason not to do it.

How likely do you think it is that one man can irradiate a large portion of a large city? I guess this is where the difference of opinion lies. What you apparently see as a realistic scenerio I see has being so highly unlikely that it almost irrational. As such, I can't see the high benefit from the cost of taking away civil liberties.

Any step like this IS a loss of freedom and civil liberty, even if it IS for just a couple of people. It doesn't matter whether there is a slippery slope or not, I think it is a pretty big deal. (I would also point out that if we KNOW that this plot is occuring, then we should have evidence. With that, you should be able to charge this guy with something. If you don't have evidence, how do you KNOW for sure?)

Originally posted by ges7184How likely do you think it is that one man can irradiate a large portion of a large city? I guess this is where the difference of opinion lies. What you apparently see as a realistic scenerio I see has being so highly unlikely that it almost irrational.

Originally posted by ges7184How likely do you think it is that one man can irradiate a large portion of a large city? I guess this is where the difference of opinion lies. What you apparently see as a realistic scenerio I see has being so highly unlikely that it almost irrational.

Originally posted by ges7184How likely do you think it is that one man can irradiate a large portion of a large city? I guess this is where the difference of opinion lies. What you apparently see as a realistic scenerio I see has being so highly unlikely that it almost irrational.

I don't trust al Qaeda as a source. I think they may tend to exaggerate their own capabilities for the purposes of spreading fear (you know, they are terrorists).

As far as Oklahoma City goes, they destroyed one half of one building, which is FAR short of irradiating a large portion of a large city. They also didn't need a nuclear weapon or any other WMD to do it, just a good ol' fashion manure bomb did the trick. That scenerio is much more likely to reoccur in my mind than the doomsday nuclear scenerios (though still not that likely in the grand scheme of things).

I still think the odds of dying from a terrorist attack is a lot closer to that of being struck by lightning. I think we should keep that in mind when we start considering taking away individual rights. We need to make sure it is something we actually need to do, and not something we are doing out of irrational fear.